Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution.
Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to "bystanders," i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not en...
| Publicado en: | Bioethics Vol. 34; no. 9; pp. 937 - 941 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Nov2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=147132009&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 147132009 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02699702 6PJ jtl: Bioethics issn: 02699702 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Nov2020 vid: 34 iid: 9 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 147132009 10.1111/bioe.12823 ppf: 937 ppct: 4 formats: tig: atl: Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution. aug: au: Wikler, Daniel affil: Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston Massachusetts, su: United States Government agencies Medical research Government regulation Human research subjects Institutional review boards Cost analysis Professional practice sug: subj: Government agencies Medical research Government regulation Human research subjects United States Other federal government public administration Other provincial and territorial public administration Other local, municipal and regional public administration Other General Government Support Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) Institutional review boards Cost analysis Professional practice keyword: bystanders ethical review IRBs research ethics research risk risk bystanders ethical review IRBs research ethics research risk risk ab: Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to "bystanders," i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not enrolled as study subjects. Should IRBs expand their scope to include oversight over possible harms to bystanders as well as research subjects? This paper presents arguments against this step. Prior review of research with human subjects, despite its evident burden on the research enterprise, is a necessary caution, because the tension between the objectives of humane treatment of research subjects and sound scientific design and procedure has in the past led to serious abuses. This rationale is inapplicable in the case of bystanders. Moreover, in view of the many and varied effects of both research practices and scientific advances on the broader public over time, those who may be considered to be "bystanders" may potentially expand without limit; requiring IRBs to anticipate these distant and long‐term effects as part of prior ethical review could greatly increase its burden and its deterrent effect on research. While conducting research without concern for serious potential harm to bystanders may be irresponsible and unethical, expanding the scope of prior review by IRBs to include risks to bystanders is not required by the principles governing human subjects research, and the costs and burdens of this expansion may outweigh any expected gains. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|